Friday, 19 June 1987 Washington, DC
1.
US SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN LOUISIANA 'CREATIONISM' LAW
that requires public schools to teach the way the world was
formed, according to Genesis, whenever evolution is explained.
In a 7-2 decision, Justice Brennan, writing for the court, argued
that the purpose of the Louisiana law was "to restructure the
science curriculum to conform with a particular religious
viewpoint." Accordingly, Brennan wrote, by providing legal,
"symbolic" and financial support for religion in the schools,
Louisiana lawmakers violated the First Amendment, which requires
the separation of church and state. The two dissenting court
members were Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist.
2
. NSF REVEALS STRATEGY UNDER HIGHER BUDGETS.
Even while
Congress haggles whether to cut or not to cut NSF's $1.8B budget
request for fiscal 1988, the agency this morning showed the
National Science Board its 5-year plans. The scenario provides
14.5% increases each year up to 1992, when the budget would total
$3.2B. It also calls for increasing the number of grants to
individual investigators by about 25% from the current 10,180 per
year and raising their value by 22%, with the intention of
funding one grad student with each principal investigator. In
addition, NSF proposes to pour money into new scientific
equipment and facilities after fiscal 1989, so that by 1992 it
would give out $510M for major research instruments and buildings
on campus. Meanwhile, to cut costs and hold down paperwork, NSF
will soon experiment with electronic "mailings" for proposals and
reviews with the University of Michigan and Carnegie-Mellon.
3. GUIDELINES FOR NSF'S PROPOSED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
were aired during a tempestuous 2-hour debate by the National
Science Board. The excited exchanges included accusations that
NSF is "mortgaging its future" by sponsoring various centers in
basic science, engineering and supercomputing, possibly at the
expense of individual investigators. "I sense that the
Foundation's administrators believe centers are the wave of the
future," said one member. That position, he argued, "seems more
like IBM than NSF." The agency's director, Erich Bloch, a former
IBM vice-president, assured the board that NSF would strike a
proper balance between centers and individual researchers. In
fact, he has asked the National Research Council for advice on
the balance of NSF support, and a committee headed by Hans
Frauenfelder and Joshua Lederberg is looking at this. The
Science Board also voiced concern about phasing out unproductive
or unsuccessful centers. In this connection, today a Research
Council study group, led by Richard Zare of Stanford, released
its report on the centers urging 3-year interim reviews, and a
9-year "sunset" provision. The Zare Report concludes with "some
cautionary observations"--notably that centers may divert funds
from individual grants and that in time they may become
unresponsive to new ideas and unreceptive to new people.
|
